Palin to Arnold: How’s that green economy working for California, pal?

posted at 12:15 pm on December 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

After Arnold Schwarzenegger criticized Sarah Palin’s stance on global warming yesterday, few thought it would take long for Palin to respond.  She launched a broadside on her Facebook page, and reminded California’s governor that the “grain of salt” the Governator recommended should be taken with economic advice from the leader of a state in free-fall and unable to budget its money properly.  Even if the world is warming, it doesn’t mean that the warming is either anthropogenic or catastrophic — and conservation doesn’t mean killing the economy:

Why is Governor Schwarzenegger pushing for the same sorts of policies in Copenhagen that have helped drive his state into record deficits and unemployment? Perhaps he will recall that I live in our nation’s only Arctic state and that I was among the first governors to create a sub-cabinet to deal specifically with climate change. While I and all Alaskans witness the impacts of changes in weather patterns firsthand, I have repeatedly said that we can’t primarily blame man’s activities for those changes. And while I did look for practical responses to those changes, what I didn’t do was hamstring Alaska’s job creators with burdensome regulations so that I could act “greener than thou” when talking to reporters.

As Allahpundit noted, the attack on Palin seems pretty strange, from a political point of view.  After all, Palin has been a bit of a moderate on climate change, not a “denier” or even a skeptic.  Having her as an arms-length ally would make a lot more sense to the AGW True Believers, who could (a) leverage her influence on the Right to get some momentum for action, and (b) marginalize skeptics and “deniers” by using Palin in that sense.  Even “practical changes” could give enough movement to declare some victories in the US.

This demonstrates that Schwarzenegger cares more about the electoral politics involved than the climate change issues, and he’s not the only one.  The AGW True Believers aren’t interested in working with people to build consensus towards a compromise; they want to dictate their solutions and use questionable science and sky-is-falling hysteria to get it.  Sarah Palin is the canary in the coal mine, so to speak, that demonstrates this.

And Palin’s right to skewer Arnold on economics.  When California shows that it has the fiscal responsibility to actually cut its spending and bring its budget into balance while not overburdening its citizens with oppressive taxes and regulation, then perhaps its governor can offer advice on economics and policy.  Until then, Arnold should mind his own store and save his wit for the state legislature.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I swear, Sarah Palin would make Ronald Reagan proud.

pilamaye on December 16, 2009 at 4:54 PM

This is worth looking at again.

massrighty on December 16, 2009 at 10:11 PM

Whoo iz zis Sarr-ahh Pay-Linn? Iz she ze daw-ter of zat udder Sarr-ahh who giff me zo much trubb-bell in zoss old moo-vees? Vat voss her na-um?

Vos it Sarr-ah Konn-er?

Zat did nut vork out so gud, I donn zink…

Bruno Strozek on December 16, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Bruno Strozek on December 16, 2009 at 10:26 PM

That’s funny. Teh TerminalGuvernuhtor izzh ahhhhffraaaaaaid of Sarrrrrahhh Palinnnnnnnn. Shitttttt scaaaaaarreeeeeeeed.

TheAlamos on December 16, 2009 at 11:05 PM

After all, Palin has been a bit of a moderate on climate change, not a “denier” or even a skeptic.

Really, Ed? That’s not what I heard. She’s a strong skeptic of AGW. Prove me wrong.

disa on December 16, 2009 at 11:11 PM

After all, Palin has been a bit of a moderate on climate change, not a “denier” or even a skeptic.
Really, Ed? That’s not what I heard. She’s a strong skeptic of AGW. Prove me wrong.

disa on December 16, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Governor Palin does not deny that there may be some observable climate change – she just doesn’t buy that it’s a scientifically proven fact, or that it’s “man-made” (anthropogenic.)

That may have been Ed’s point.

massrighty on December 16, 2009 at 11:18 PM

Hate to spoil the Palin lovefest but take a look at Appendix C Administrative Order 238 Establishing the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet which former governor palin ordered in Sep 2007. Two items in particular:

9. the potential benefits of Alaska participating in regional, national, and international climate policy agreements and greenhouse gas registries
13. the opportunities for Alaska to participate in carbon-trading markets, including the offering of carbon sequestration;

contrast that with her latest Facebook posting

Perhaps he will recall that I live in our nation’s only Arctic state and that I was among the first governors to create a sub-cabinet to deal specifically with climate change

So she was for carbon trading before she was against it ala kerry and Iraq?
Seems to me this flip flop would make her fail the purity test some conservatives would like to have for the GOP. Or does the RINO charge only apply selectively within the self professed pure conservatives.

Bradky on December 16, 2009 at 11:39 PM

Palin called Ahnold a girlie-man.

And he’ll send an IOU in rebuttal.

profitsbeard on December 17, 2009 at 12:09 AM

Seems to me this flip flop would make her fail the purity test some conservatives would like to have for the GOP. Or does the RINO charge only apply selectively within the self professed pure conservatives.

Bradky on December 16, 2009 at 11:39 PM

Yeah, which is it, Bradky? Is she “big tent” or narrowly partisan to the point of excluding all but the purists? Quick now.

ddrintn on December 17, 2009 at 12:22 AM

After all, Palin has been a bit of a moderate on climate change, not a “denier” or even a skeptic.
Really, Ed? That’s not what I heard. She’s a strong skeptic of AGW. Prove me wrong.

disa on December 16, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Asking questions does not make you a denier of anything! Asking questions when the science seems fishy makes you smart. Ignoring the sink… not so much.

Absolutely all of us who can see the political corruption that is involved in this “science” are troubled that so much is demanded on so little evidence! It simply does not add up!

That fact that Palin can see that and that she would go along with the carbon trading scam if that would help should be in her favor.

When new evidence comes to light and you ignore it… that is just dumb.

Not Palin or any other conservative wishes the earth would sink into the ocean! We just want honest science! Not Al Gore hype!

And the more evidence I see the more I doubt this is based on anything at all, other than a desire to remake the world in the caused of some unobtainable “justice”.

Climate has so little to do with this! As evidenced by the roar the little countries are making when they don’t get the handouts for their elites!

Copenhagen has nothing to do with climate.

petunia on December 17, 2009 at 12:32 AM

Kennedy wifey snipped the right one, and Palin snipped the left one.

Kalifornia is the future of the U.S…bankrupted by Democrats, Unions, Enviros. Arnold was elected in lieu of Bustamove (sp), a Reconquista incompetent who could be Obama’s sibling.

Kalifornia has long had a habit of forgoing the use of its own resources at the expense of trashing all neighboring states. Through overbuilding and overpopulating areas that cannot support it, the entire U.S. has been burdened with their onerous pollution laws, auto laws. As soon as another overtly Democrat Gov. is elected, expect another crippling (for the rest of the country) bailout, as Kalifornia is “too big to fail”.

trl on December 17, 2009 at 12:41 AM

Is this thread not totally redundant from the prior thread on the same issue? Is it just so Ed can chime in too, or what?

In other news:

Q: Why did Sarah Palin cross the road?

A: She didn’t — she got halfway across, then quit!!!

HAW HAW HAW

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 1:46 AM

Most intelligent commenter ever on a blog answer this question. Define conservatism and how Palin’s policies and worldview deviate from conservatism.

daesleeper on December 17, 2009 at 1:59 AM

Yeah, which is it, Bradky? Is she “big tent” or narrowly partisan to the point of excluding all but the purists? Quick now.

ddrintn on December 17, 2009 at 12:22 AM

LOL – you dodge better than Kerry. She was for carbon credits and the opportunities she believed they posed. To the self professed conservatives that is sacrilege. If Romney or Rudy or McCain had suggested it you cannot honestly say that the Palin faithful wouldn’t have attacked mercilessly.

A legitimate criticism and you prove once again that the Palin faithful are incapable of objectivity. That is the risk of picking your nominee (a) 3 years ahead of time & (b) picking someone who hasn’t even declared their intent to run

Bradky on December 17, 2009 at 5:27 AM

She was for carbon credits and the opportunities she believed they posed.

Bradky on December 17, 2009 at 5:27 AM

You love taking things out of context.

BPD on December 17, 2009 at 5:59 AM

You love taking things out of context.

BPD on December 17, 2009 at 5:59 AM

That will be her explanation for an order she issued? “Bradky takes things out of context”
Why does it matter as relates to this thread? She criticizes a sitting governor for his position when in truth in the first sixty days of taking office she created a sub cabinet to look at ways to profit from carbon credits among other goals.

Did you bother to read Appendix C Administrative Order 238?

http://www.climatechange.alaska.gov/aag/docs/AAG_dftrpt_appC_1Sep09.pdf

Bradky on December 17, 2009 at 6:31 AM

A legitimate criticism and you prove once again that the Palin faithful are incapable of objectivity. That is the risk of picking your nominee (a) 3 years ahead of time & (b) picking someone who hasn’t even declared their intent to run

Bradky on December 17, 2009 at 5:27 AM

I just asked a simple question. Do you think Romney’s flip-flopping disqualifies him? ‘Course not…

ddrintn on December 17, 2009 at 7:35 AM

Bradky on December 17, 2009 at 6:31 AM

You didn’t even read it…

“In view of its purpose, the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet shall develop recommendations on the
following: ”

The whole purpose of this order was for a panel of people to perform exhaustive research and provide recommendations. This is actually a routine method of raising awareness and forming consensus. Do you know what the recommendations were? Perhaps the sub-committee recommended against certain things? Perhaps she agreed? You don’t know. Considering that, at the time, the idea of national and/or worldwide carbon trading markets seemed inevitable — it seems reasonable that she would want to know how that would affect Alaska. The fact is she never pushed for legislation to create a carbon trading mechanism… never even hinted at it.

The reality is that she most likely didn’t know many specifics of a typical carbon trading market. Even seasoned economists can’t agree on the long term outcomes of these markets. It seems to me that putting together a panel of experts to research and provide recommendations on various issues is a pragmatic, and superior, method of governing.

BPD on December 17, 2009 at 8:32 AM

I recall when Arnold was first running, and conservatives were saying this guy is really a squish and will “grow” in office to be a liberal and would do more harm then good if elected.

All of the “party first” gopers and “intellectuals” told conservatives that they were destroying the party and that we were too “pure” and we needed a big tent. (Kind of the same thing they tell us with regard to Palin and Christ and others as well). How is that working out for California. When was the last time Arnold did anything for the GOP or conservatism? It seems all he does anymore is attack republicans/conservatives and support Obama.

But of course, it’s still better for there to be a governor with an “r” after his name in California, right? After all, that way the blame for California’s problems can’t be pinned on just one party.

Just a friendly reminder to those who think winning is the only important goal. Sometimes losing on principal is better in the long-term than winning w/o any principal.

Monkeytoe on December 17, 2009 at 8:40 AM

-
An aging CONAN vs RED state SONJA.
-
No contest
-

esblowfeld on December 17, 2009 at 9:18 AM

BPD on December 17, 2009 at 8:32 AM

Well done. Bradky is now PWNED along with the Terminator.

fossten on December 17, 2009 at 9:55 AM

I don’t listen to or read him, but I’m wondering what ol’ Hugh Hewitt has to say about Arnold these days?

Monkeytoe on December 17, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Oh God, not another multi-page thread where vox cries and wets her panties about how much she hates Sarah Palin! We get it, you hate her, go whine about it elsewhere!

runawayyyy on December 17, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Sarah Palin is the only one I could support in 2012 at this point.

Where the heck is Romney/Daniels/Pawlenty/Huckabee?? Their silence speak volumes.

Norwegian on December 17, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Oh God, not another multi-page thread where vox cries and wets her panties about how much she hates Sarah Palin! We get it, you hate her, go whine about it elsewhere!

runawayyyy on December 17, 2009 at 10:47 AM

No thanks, I’m happy right here. I hear PalinBot.com has free registration though.

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:33 PM

HAW HAW HAW

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 1:46 AM

When you look in the mirror, do you see your a$$?

lovingmyUSA on December 17, 2009 at 12:51 PM

BPD on December 17, 2009 at 8:32 AM

With guns like that–do you hunt moose? :)

lovingmyUSA on December 17, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Oh God, not another multi-page thread where vox cries and wets her panties about how much she hates Sarah Palin! We get it, you hate her, go whine about it elsewhere!

runawayyyy on December 17, 2009 at 10:47 AM

vox is a chick??? No wonder she went after Treacher–though it does kill some of my best lines…drat!

lovingmyUSA on December 17, 2009 at 12:58 PM

:shock:

Sultry Beauty on December 17, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Seems to me this flip flop would make her fail the purity test some conservatives would like to have for the GOP. Or does the RINO charge only apply selectively within the self professed pure conservatives.

Excuse me. Papertiger here.
I don’t recall any Bradky comments at WUWT. Or Climate Audit, Climate Skeptic, IceCap, Jen Marohasy, JoNova, Bolt’s blog, Tim Blair, the Air Vent, Planet Gore, American Thinker, Heliogenic Climate Change, Climate Realists, the Chilling Effect, Skeptic’s Corner, Gore Lied, Climate Change Fraud, C3, Climate Depot, Climate Research News, Pielke blogs, Prometheis, World Climate Report, Green Hell, Climate Resistance, Master Resource, Greenie Watch, I Love My CO2, the Reference Frame, or Junk Science.

The question isn’t what you believed before you knew any better. Everyone has seen that the temperature record is horse shit. Everyone has seen that it is computerated fraud perpetrated by the CRU and the international left.

There no middle ground. Either you were never fooled, or you can be like John McCain and admit you were taken in, or you can be worthless traitorous piece of trash like Kerry.

Going forward, if politicians still push global warming, they are liars seeking to defraud the public and debase the country.
Kerry Gore Tony Blair and Arnold are damned for eternity.

papertiger on December 17, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Oh and if President Obama strikes a deal at Copenhagen he deserves to be impeached.

papertiger on December 17, 2009 at 2:09 PM

BPD on December 17, 2009 at 8:32 AM

You read the opening paragraph. Paras 9 & 13 were pretty clear. It was done in 2007 – well after Gore had begun his talk about carbon credits. Yet you give her benefit for wise counsel and consideration because it is Palin. Insert Romney, gore, Pawlenty ,or any other person’s name in the header and you would claim it as proof how uninformed they are. Life in lala land for the Palinites is sugar canes and candy nothing more than that.

papertiger on December 17, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Anyone that has time to regularly monitor 25+ sites to defend Palin is someone that is either unemployed or leaching off of some unsuspecting employer….

I just asked a simple question. Do you think Romney’s flip-flopping disqualifies him? ‘Course not…

ddrintn on December 17, 2009 at 7:35 AM

Do you ever do anything but dodge a direct question regarding Palin? I’m not in love with any particular person – you are and that is what makes your behavior cult like.

Well done. Bradky is now PWNED along with the Terminator.

fossten on December 17, 2009 at 9:55 AM

So says the person incapable of reading the relevant material.

Bradky on December 17, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Insert away. I’d vote for whomever stands against the global warming cult.

papertiger on December 18, 2009 at 11:09 PM


Anyone that has time to regularly monitor 25+ sites to defend Palin is someone that is either unemployed or leaching off of some unsuspecting employer….

But you don’t deny the claim. Climate changer.

papertiger on December 18, 2009 at 11:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4